The UCI Presidential Campaign Gets Dirty

It’s hard to find a dirtier election contest than the battle to run the UCI. Overnight Velonews brought us enough allegations of shakedowns, cover-ups and bribery to fill a James Ellroy novel. You can see a three-page summary of a 54-page dossier that has existed since June containing potent allegations against Pat McQuaid.

But McQuaid has fired back today with allegations that he’s the victim of extortion and bribery attempts from unnamed “opponents”. These are equally bold allegations too. For all the stories we’ve seen so far regarding the UCI it’s now reached a new level with allegations of criminal conspiracy on both sides.

Today also sees the vote for a new President of the International Olympic Committee. This can be a very tough process but most of the action takes place with private briefings and game theory style alliances between rivals who might temporarily link up to knock a rival out of the game before resuming their contest. Think a duck gliding across a pond, it looks elegant and streamlined but its feet are paddling hard.

Meanwhile the UCI’s contest has no such elegance. Instead it’s becoming the public relations equivalent of a bar brawl and as things get more bitter, divisive and out of control by the day. Rather than trading competing visions for the future we’re now seeing personal attacks. Take Pat McQuaid’s response to these allegations. Instead of just refuting things, McQuaid takes it up a notch to launch personal attack in a letter sent to national federations today and seen by your correspondent.

So far in this presidential election campaign, my opponents have employed lies, bribery, attempted extortion, attempted vote-buying, attempts at entrapment with hidden cameras and microphones, commercial interests threatening to bankrupt national federations if they didn’t withdraw my nomination and legal chicaneries to try to prevent you from even being given the chance to vote for or against me. This is not democracy. This is gangster politics.

If Brian Cookson does not now condemn these tactics utterly, then we can only assume that he supports them – and we will all have a graphic preview of how the UCI will be run for the coming four years under his leadership and with his henchmen.

This behaviour on the part of three Management Committee members – as well as this libellous dossier – is doing untold damage to the reputation of the UCI, something that Brian Cookson has claimed he apparently wants to restore.

Allegations vs Evidence
Armed with free software anyone can fill a PDF document. You could type up claims that Pat McQuaid kills kittens or is part of an alien master race. Of course a journalist has the right to press the delete button when it lands in their inbox. In this case we can assume Velonews trust the source to judge it worth publishing the allegations.

The dossier is not new, there were tales of it back in June and a senior official from the UCI said it was being investigated but this seemed to stop after the full dossier could not be obtained.

However if it’s one thing to make allegations, it’s another to prove it. And with the leak today those behind the claims against McQuaid have to state their case. Helpfully for his opponents Pat McQuaid’s first response was to say the following:

Yesterday evening, a libellous “dossier”, alleging corruption at the UCI, was anonymously leaked to the media. The media organisation presented the document to me. The claims in this so-called dossier are a complete fabrication. They are totally untrue and are not supported by a scintilla of evidence.

Has McQuaid gone too far?
If some of the claims include allegations of trying to shakedown a team owner for cash or an apparent attempt to cover-up Alberto Contador’s 2010 positive test others include less scandalous things such as “Mr. McQuaid was interviewed extensively for several hours by the two investigators about the allegations in The Report” but McQuaid seems to be stating this is a fabrication too. Maybe he was not interviewed but if he was this is very easy to prove. Similarly when the report says “There is testimonial evidence from more than one witness” then these people need to come forward.

What Next?

  • In the short term the UCI Ethics Committee needs to look into this 3-page PDF document. Even establishing the facts over whether McQuaid has seen this folder would be a start. But it’s not easy as the three member committee is run by Pieter Zevenbergen, a Dutchman with historic links to Hein Verbruggen
  • The UCI needs to investigate the claims made by Pat McQuaid. He’s making claims of bribery and extortion and needs to back this up with evidence because those behind this have no place in the sport. These are criminal matters too so he should think about employing the police.
  • The UCI should be asking those suspected to be behind the report, namely Igor Makarov and Mike Plant, to state whether they have any involvement and if they have any information to contribute. This has to be done quickly given the vote is three weeks away. Also is Brian Cookson working in concert with the people behind these leaks?
  • Longer term the UCI might consider a lawsuit. Remember it’s used this technique successfully before against Floyd Landis when he was rude about McQuaid. Now that a series of accusations has been made will we see the UCI do the same again?

As for the UCI itself, this is just the reflection of the dysfunctional nature of the sport. There’s now open warfare between the Cookson and McQuaid camps with each side making increasingly personal attacks and nobody seems able to stop the fight. The electoral calculus looks tight and the worry is that whoever is elected later this month will end up with the poisoned chalice of a split governing body with some federations set against them.

Conclusion
Political thrillers have their intrigue, see the success of the TV drama “The House of Cards” but if the contest to run the UCI offers soap opera drama it’s turning into a tragedy. Because for all the press release tennis and leaked documents we’re now going from mudslinging to allegations of criminal activity with talk of bribery and extortion. The allegations from this leaked document and those made by Pat McQuaid are all so serious they need to be investigated by the UCI and possibly the police need to be called in. Brian Cookson needs to think about who his friends are.

The odd thing is that Pat McQuaid could be finished if just one item from the dossier could be accompanied by supporting testimony. But the bullet point list aimed at Aigle today is firing blanks until evidence appears. If anything it will encourage McQuaid’s supporters to stand by him during this storm rather than scare people.

56 thoughts on “The UCI Presidential Campaign Gets Dirty”

    • I’m not sure Cookson should continue with his candidacy, for his own and BC’s sake – it’s eroding their credibility by association, even though Cookson comes across as being more able and professional.

      That Cookson is willing to stand against someone who is clearly desperate to retain his position at all costs seems bizarre and self-defeating. If Cookson wins it will not be because he might be the better contender but that McQuaid is deemed incompetent, if he loses it will be because he’s up against a corrupt North Korean/Zimbabwean style ‘old boy network’. Either way it will be at the expense of further eroding the credibility of cycling.

      To not be tainted by the backsplash from all the mudslinging I reckon Cookson should withdraw his candidacy and insist the Ethics Commission clarify whether the vote should go ahead if there is doubt over one party is actually eligible to stand, when clarified then the election can be re-started. Until it has been established that McQuaid is really entitled to be re-elected this contest is a farce. I can see this vote being sent to the CAS after the event and turning in to a long drawn-out debacle.

      I know my suggestion would be expensive and time consuming but we need an equal contest between real contenders with real debate, not a slapstick pie-fight.

  2. Cycling is being reduced to nothing less than a public disgrace.

    INRNG is correct in my opinion – the ‘Dossier’ people either have to put up or shut up. The endless mudslinging does no one, least the sport any favours.
    I note that Cookson has taken a more disciplined and statesman like line than adopted by PMQ. Even their relative blog contents show a contrasting difference in demeanour.

    • C’mon! I was all excited to post that we were in agreement until your last two sentences. Do you work or volunteer for either BC? Or, are you Brian?

      If Cookson had just stood for election and let it go to vote, that would have been admirable. The sleaze factor of his collusion with Fuller, Plant and Makarov makes McQuaid look like a Saint (albeit, often with a foot in his mouth) and the “dossier” is just pathetic. Decision by demeanor is for people who want to be spoon fed the party line and wash it down with KoolAid.

      I want the guy who calls it like it is. It’s a rough sport, full of criminals and cheats. McQ can fight them while doing his political job as well (Olympics, etc.), Cookson’s in their pocket without an earned flourish on his resume.

      As to the blog post; again Inrng is the voice of reason. Lawsuits are coming, regardless of the flavor, McQ has never been good at pulling on the reins of patience and reserve. It’s a shame too, because he has done so much good for such a crooked but wonderful sport.

      I’m in McQuaid’s corner regardless until the end. I’m confident the odds are still in his favor.

      • “McQ can fight them”

        Are you serious?

        You mean fighting his brother Darach when attempting to host a WC?
        Or fighting the donations from athletes suspected of doping?
        Or fighting the independence of your own “independent” investigative commission?

        McQuaid has certainly done good, if you’re in his inner circle, his family, or in the business of organizing races in China. But hey, of course you can be in his corner. I’m sure it serves your interests. Objectively, he’s presided one of the dirtiest eras in the sport. If not complicit and corrupt, at the very least he is incompetent.

        But hey, lets focus on important things like UCI wheel stickers and level TT saddles.

        • More dopers caught than ever before, under McQuaid. You must have been asleep for that part.

          Bio Passport. Developed and implemented for the first time on Planet Earth by the UCI under McQuaid, just now being adopted by other sports around the world. And, WADA.

          Nepotism? The McQuaids have been in cycling since before you were born. Fact. Should they all become trash pickers or sardine fisherman?

          You really think this is the dirtiest era? And you’re posting like an expert?

      • McQuaid’s seemed happy to work with Makarov, even accompanying the Russian on business trips to visit dictators in crucial markets where Makarov’s company has been very active like Belarus and Turkmenistan. This blog and others warned about it for years but it’s only when the billionaire turns against him that McQuaid gets upset.

        The whole contest is looking terrible and cycling’s administrators look like a joke. A “rough sport full of criminals and cheats” is not where cycling should be.

        • Agree 100%. I’d suggest you would be a great nomination for UCI Pres, Inner Ring, but you seem way too honest and talk too much sense. And there’s obviously no room for either in the UCI.

        • You are absolutely correct in everything you write. But, to your point, should McQ not be upset?

          Are not the tactics of Cookson’s supporters, and Cookson if you read between the lines of his impeccable timing, extremely unethical? It doesn’t take even half of your intelligence and insight to know that Cookson’s supporters have a problem with how the new doping tests and controls have effected their bottom line:

          Makarov; you called it a long time ago. Having to be accountable for their budget alone is inconvenient, to be polite.

          Fuller; cheap publicity, illegal product. CCN is about changing Skins bottom line, isn’t it.

          Plant; Honestly, who does Plant represent and where did half of the rumors in the dossier come from, if it isn’t Thomas Wiesel? To really expose cycling for what it was, Wiesel is in deep doo. With a puppet willing to look the other way, it all blows over. And, maybe he gets back into the game. Cycling is about to become Very Lucrative.

          British Cycling; You know better than I, I’m sure, that Cookson has had very little to do with BC’s success. You also can gather that BC is really SKY and a very nice publicity return for the Murdoch company; he and they don’t need any more bad publicity. And you know that Froome’s time up Ventoux was implausible, regardless of whether his “help” is in the code or not. The present UCI, for all it’s faults, isn’t going to stop at micro dosing and Aicar. Cookson, with a record for doing Nothing, will prolong their reign.

          McQuaid has made many mistakes and no one could be faulted for calling him an idiot at times. But he is doing quite a bit right and the passport, despite it’s questionable long term future effectiveness, is ground breaking. He has come from an era and a history of doping and cheating. You know this; 15 years ago, doping and all sorts of unethical behavior was totally legit on the inside. He has, for whatever reason, begun to lead the sport out of not just an era, but a 100 year old culture. Mistakes should be expected. He has a foot and most of his body straining toward a new culture and he’s trying to extract his toes from the other foot out of the mire of the last century. He may not be the guy for forever, but he’s certainly not in anybody’s pocket.

          The UCI management system was developed in an era when this was a relatively small sport, it is behind in it’s evolution relative to the business of the sport, this will change too. But, no one, existing or new regime will be able to do it over night. The contest IS terrible. Despite who started it, McQ has not stayed above the fray; he’s not a made for TV politician. But, Cookson’s manifesto was half baked and there’s not an honest guy on his team.

          Regardless of where this amazing sport should be, and I’m confident that your love and concerns here are not much different than mine, it has always been a rough sport peopled by pill poppers, corner cutters and mafia from every culture. It has always been a way out of poverty. And you don’t always play cricket, clawing your way up from there. This paradoxical culture, in part, is what makes it so wonderful; agreements between opponents honored and broken, cunning tactics especially before radios, the Patron, the loyal lieutenant. And also disgusting; Rico, Postal, Fuentes et al, Tondo and who really turned in DiLuca.

          It will take our lifetime for this sport to change for the better, it will take a fierce, knowledgeable, persistent leader. Success is not guaranteed.

          • LM
            Not sure you’re correct to name Makarov, Plant, Fuller, et al as Cookson supporters. They would side with pretty much anybody in front of PMcQ. I think even Sepp Blatter would garner their support in front of him.

            As for British Cycling, success started on the track before Sky and the foundations were laid well before. BC had the help of lottery money but it’s not just cash that brings success. To trash Cookson’s credentials on the perception he wasn’t that influential in a success is a bit rich. It’s like saying that all domestiques on a winning team are rubbish because they weren’t as big an influence on a victory as the first guy across the line.

            Let’s face it, there comes a stage when perception in the publics eye becomes reality and in the case of the UCI it’s at rock bottom. Anyone else will be perceived to be better than the incumbent and when that’s the case a person who really cared for the sport would resign gracefully knowing the damage that they were doing. It’s got to the stage where the truth is irrelevant and only a fresh start will appease the majority.

          • Larrick,

            Cookson has no credentials, I challenge you to produce a pre-election cycle article that credits him with anything at all, and I’m familiar with the evolution of BC, have followed it since before the internet. I am not throwing the whole program under the bus, I am asking you to look clearly at what may be. Sky, presently, is a very different animal than the BC of early this century.

            As to perception, Verbruggen and LA was rock bottom, McQ is atoning for his sins. Wouldn’t you rather have a president that was working toward good, rather than just perceived to be doing so? I mean, there are people who will argue that Pro Wrestling is real and that the Nobel Peace Prize is not political, right?

        • INRNG, come on, you know how life works. No one, but no one, pulls any kind of moral and ethical barriers out of the hat when it comes to the business of sport. Where do you want to draw the line – China? Turkey? Ukraine? Russia?

          • LM, I have to say that your phrasing is very familiar. Perhaps you’re hitting this post thread as you’ve hit others on this topic, but using a different name?

            Ah well, you challenged Larrick to produce a pre-election ‘cycle’ article (in the UK , we tend to using the word ‘cycling’ , btw, in phrasing such as this ). I’ll step in with this one, dated 1 Jan 08. A good 5 years ago.

            http://www.bikehub.co.uk/news/british-cycling-celebrates-an-mbe-and-an-obe/

          • You’ve got to do better than an award for nothing. What has he actually done of note? What new concept has he implemented, what difficult choice has he made that paid off? What doper has he run out of town?

          • Thanks Sam, I’ve been watching the cycling rather than trawling through the net to answer LM’s needs. I would suggest a read of the UCI management meetings minutes since BC has been a member. Interesting to note how often he asks pertinent questions and makes suggestions compared to the rest. As for his standing, the fact that when he is talked about, it’s usually couched with terms such as “the well respected Brian Cookson” carry weight. So does being elected on a yearly basis for nearly two decades show respect from his peers. And before you say it was normally unopposed LM, remember Pats story.

            Lastly, I’d rather have someone that isn’t perceived as a lying, corrupt, ill-tempered fool, especially if the other option is well respected administrator who has overseen a team who have produced positive changes in a large cycling organization. Oh and the OBE might count for something too.

  3. It all makes one feel naive to think that UCI reforms might make it onto the election agenda and then into the mandate of te winning candidate. You are right. And its not just about the split federations. How could anyone win this race? They would have to have a cision and leadership capabilities we have yet to see in either to accomplish much of anything.

  4. I can understand the public brawling if the candidates needed to pursuade the public to get their votes but the election doesn’t work anything like that. So why all the public mudslinging?

    Best part is the election is right around the corner. Barring a bunch of challenges after the vote, things MAY calm down some……….but unfortunately, I doubt it.

  5. I like McQuaid’s use of the word ‘henchmen’. Although personally, I would have gone with ‘cronies’. You don’t get many opportunities to use the word ‘cronies’ in this day and age, so you’ve got to take them where you can.

  6. The UCI’s Mad Hatter is not going down without a fight…a nasty, mud-slinging brawl. Trouble is, he’s in the fight against two other characters that worry me…two fellows who seem to be willing to play fast and loose with the truth themselves. How Cookson figures into all of it has got me somewhat confused. These other two might be “henchmen” or “cronies” but Cookson himself would be smart to stay above the fray…an idea The Mad Hatter has never considered. May the least bad man win!

  7. I think there might actually be a kind of “omerta” amongst those who run cycling which is stopping them speaking out against McQuaid. They know that if they speak out against him and he wins the election, they’re going to find their lives a lot more difficult. Remind you of anyone?

    If Brian Cookson does win, he might find himself with a tidal wave of people coming forward to speak out about the corruption that’s been rife within the UCI.

  8. Ah, the Inrng boat has tilted again as it hits another wave in the rough waters and just as the term “gangster” has been brought in, the image of the man with a smoking gun has been replaced by a little man reading in the dark.

    Why would they be making so many films about Armstrong when the presidential election provides for such great drama? Scene at Aigle. Cut. Scene in London. Cut. Scene in Moscow. Cut. Scene with surveillance team. Cut. Swiss bank. Cut. Algiers. Cut. Conference call, multiple frames. Cut. Aigle. Cut. Johannesburg. Cut. Back to Colorado, London, Aigle, St. Petersburg, Florence, Aigle….

    Can’t see why the UCI would call in the police. They are ‘guests’ in Switzerland, better not create a commotion. Other than that, can’t see the Swiss investigating some ‘petty’ money exchanges big companies may have offered. If anything it would be in their interest to keep heavy hitters like Makarov well invested in their banks.

    As for McQuaid, his roughness and impulsiveness – while annoying – strangely make him, in a way, more honest, and if anything, render him untrustworthy for serious corruption. Likely he has erred and rounded more than one corner, but much like an athlete doping in a doping era, doubt he was that bad in the context of how the UCI handled things. Cookson, on the other hand, just puts me off with his slick PR. Find it difficult to believe anything he says. And then, seems as though he got others to do the ‘dirty work’. So he remains Snow White, while all the Indians are chasing cowboy Pat.

    • The UCI President who tried to block the USADA report….the man who called whistleblowers ‘scumbags’….not ‘that bad in the context of how the UCI handled things….?

      Got to be careful not to develop a touch of Stockhausen Syndrome here…

        • Ah. Now we’re starting to get somewhere. So what’s your beef: that they doped or that they turned whistleblower? So do you think its a terrible thing that Armstrong, Bruyneel and the other subjects of the USADA 4 were held accountable? Is so, just why is that? Do you not believe in the concept of witnesses providing testimony? How does a legal system look like in your world?

          • All dopers and All their enablers are breaking the rules. Any competitor has three choices: abide by the rules, change the rules or don’t play.

            Yes, there is a grey scale; Zabriskie is a different kind of cheater than LA, isn’t he? Unfortunately, he doped too. But Hamilton did not need to be coerced and Landis’ Tour recovery was so surreal and pathetic. So too was both of their lengthy, lying defenses. That they are now making money publishing their stories and lecturing to their sycophants should be against the rules.

            A whistle blower is someone who sees something wrong, knows it’s wrong and reports it. Bassons was a whistle blower, the rest have just been cheaters who flipped like a street hustler for a reduced sentence and or a paycheck.

    • I think Anonymous means with Pat’s bluntness, he’s not capable of pulling off those schemes and even if he did, he’d be exposed wouldn’t survive the aftermath.

      He wouldn’t be able to under normal circumstances but UCI is anything but normal circumstance. The closest analogy to UCI politics is sadly prohibition era New York city gangster politics. Under these circumstances, guys like Pat would success and flourish precisely because of their lack of subtlety makes them effective.

  9. Opinions are meaningless! We do not have the facts at hand! More like handsful
    of dubiously-recycled toilet paper! He said this, they did that, blah blah!
    We do not vote in this election, we are merely spectators to a stage where all
    the actors are players, clapping their hands at our enjoyment (or chagrin) of their
    performance! Who knows, maybe the loser gets rewarded with Minister of Sports
    post under Mugabe!

  10. Inring’s view of this kerfuffle and the various accusations is spot-on. A lot serious accusations have been in the last day or two, serious enough that if the UCI doesn’t look into them, another nail might be pounded in the UCI coffin. Of course, that begs the question, “Can the UCI investigate the accusations without bias?”

    I have to admit that when I read McQuaid’s responses earlier today, I laughed out loud when McQuaid used the phrase “vote buying” with respect to someone else? After all, does anyone really believe that the Thai and Moroccan “nominations” were offered up without strings attached or reward? Irony doesn’t seem to be a strong enough word in this case.

  11. I am surprised at the way Cookson seems to be taking the blame for much of the accusations. Even the normally objective Inrng is going a bit far in my opinion. This seems to be more a case of a strong anti McQuaid brigade following the idea that ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend” and supporting Cookson to get rid of the incumbent. Not only have most of Cookson’s comments in regard to this and other accusatons been diplomatic and level headed (though I haven’t read his blog) but he is working very hard at getting his view about the future of the sport across. Just read his interview regarding Mountain Biking in Cycing News.

    • McQuaid uses the term “my opponents” in his last press release as he’s careful not to name names, a ruse to link Cookson in with the others?

      But let’s be clear, this is very serious with people making accusations of extortion, hidden payments etc. If Cookson has seen the dossier he needs to think about the police and also grill Plant and Makarov to get to the/some truth if the UCI’s three-member ethics committee can’t or maybe take a copy to WADA etc. If any these allegations are true we can’t sit around waiting for internal committees to make up their mind.

      • INRNG: Cookson has stated several times that he hasnt seen the dossier. His statement has been that Plant verbally outlined gist of it to the UCI Management Committee at their Jun meeting IIRC – but copies weren’t dished around cos McQuaid blocked it. Unless you think he’s lying….?

        The UCI Ethics Commission are ruled by McQuaid – that’s a dead-end.

        WADA – not sure I see how they would have jurisdiction over this, to be honest.

        So the only option could be the only body to whom the UCI – a self-governing body – report in any type of capacity, is the IOC. With Rogge in place, it would have been no chance given his relationship with Verbruggen. But now Rogge’s out, Vergruggen’s out AND crucially Bach’s in – and we have the added dimension of Verbruggen having tried to stop Bach from his path to the IOC presidency….maybe, just maybe….

      • I agree. If he’s not involved somehow with the dossier he needs to come out and clearly distance himself from it and it’s leaking. If he doesn’t do that following what PMQ said about ‘opponents’ it will be fairly clear he is involved. And if that is the case, it doesn’t put BC in a good light, with the implication that he’s in cahoots with Makarov.

        *sigh*

        Anyone up for lobbying the federations to abandon the UCI and set up a breakaway organisation?

          • Oh, I know – and FIFA make them all look like amateurs. But at least the Olympics and Football (soccer) are doing well. The level of dysfunction shown by the UCI for the last 20 years is unforgivable.

      • Besides laughing at Pot McKettle calling others out for bribery and corruption, I am confused as to his continuing to sling mud at Brian Cookson. I still have not seen or read anything from Cookson that could be described as anything but level headed.

        I think the evidence that we require to properly pass judgement will be forthcoming (a small amount) and timed to hit just before the election. Something to do with an e-mail I suspect. The incontrovertible truth will come with control of the UCI and all that is hidden and that is what those who have some evidence against PMcQ & HV are waiting for.

        I have this picture in my mind of the last days of the Nazi’s and the burning of incriminating evidence. Harder to get rid of all traces on servers and hard drives though!

      • Cookson responding would be similar to Wiggins/Froome answering questions about doping – whatever he says will be taken in which ever way the listener wants to understand it so I don’t blame him for not taking on the point directly.

        There could also be a possibility that the whole thing is sub-judice. From the summary, there are a number of purported acts that are illegal in certain jurisdictions. If any have been reported to the relevant judicial authorities the report cannot be published or, I suspect, given to anyone else including the Ethics committee.

        • Exactly, BC hasn’t said anything that should allow PMcQ to react in the way he does but like a political party without any ideas (insert your own choice here) he instead uses personal attacks, misinformation and scaremongering (see comments re Olympics) to try to gain votes. This is not through the want to support him but the hope that you won’t want to vote for the opposition. Ironically it’s BC that you would think would use these tactics but he has so far restrained himself from doing so and all power to him for concentrating on his own agenda and not trashing McQuaid. Of course old Pot McKettle (I’m going to use this till it becomes part of the vernacular) does a good enough job himself.

      • Your first sentence is irresponsible. Cookson is not and does not have the ability, the track record or the money to be on his own. Cookson is in with the others; some completely, some not as much.

        • Irresponsible? What are you talking about. He asks his federation to nominate him, a rather cashed up one btw, and they do. No track record? On what, running for an administrators role in a cycling organization? You talk as though some plot is being hatched to take down a man who you seem to regard as a cross between Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela and Jesus. Skin in the game have we?

          • Don’t be silly, if you just read my posts, I’m the first to admit McQuaid’s got a list of mistakes, gaffes and poor choices. In between moments with his foot in his mouth, he’s done some brilliant things. But, if you spend a day doing some reading elsewhere, you’ll find that none of your examples of Sainthood are actually that.

            There has been a plot though, hasn’t there? Cookson can’t win without the plot.

          • What brilliant things? What has he done that he hasn’t been pushed to do by others, no race radios maybe? As for the passport. 1. He was initially against it. 2. I might be wrong but I’ve always been concerned about the baseline. Only speculating but if one was to dope and their indicators for the passport showed those leves as their norm, the passport actually becomes a protection for a doper.
            Don’t want to sound like some conspiracy theorist but like anything, the information that comes out us only as good as what is put in.

            Still don’t know what plot you’re talking about.

    • I’d have to agree with what you’re saying here – he is trying to remain level. He must have known how McQuaid would get – but he’s scraping the barrel even for him

  12. I like PMcQ’s reference to “legal chicaneries” designed to stop people voting for or against him. “Never mind whether I was actually nominated, just vote, dammit!”

  14. I find LM’s defense of McQuaid mind boggling. You make it sound as if he’s the Winston Churchill of cycling – sure, a mistake here and there, but a great and progressive statesman nonetheless. Give us a break.

  15. There is a new film documentary about Lance Armstrong which is opening at the Toronto Film Festival.

    From the Guardian review ;

    As well the unique behind-the-scenes footage and the interview with Ferrari, we get damning evidence of deception in the highest ranks of the UCI. Armstrong himself admits there were “hundreds” of conversations with UCI officials where he was warned his drug tests were “flying too close to the sun”.

    http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/11/lance-armstrong-alex-gibney-armstrong-lie-review-toronto

    This should make interesting viewing for McQuaid supporters.

    The fact that McQuaid deliberately broke the IOC Apartheid ban and raced in South Africa under a false name, purely for money, tells me all I need to know about him.

Comments are closed.